While the Bible - any version - may contain the odd bit of history (just as Homer's 'Illiad' might), not by any normative standards does its many books qualify as historical works.

Take the New Testament as an example. The redaction of the NT was a politically and theologically charged affair that began in the 4th century in a series of synods - most notably the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE. The churchmen met to choose the canon some 350 years after the death of Jesus. They selected the texts to be included, and they resolved discrepancies between different copies of the same text, remembering that these manuscripts were all hand-copied over many generations. The result: an anthology touched and transformed by poets, philosophers, partisans, and politics.

It bears repeating that the NT is not a history textbook by contemporary historical standards. There is precious little independent corroboration to even establish the existence of Jesus.

Namchuck: While the Bible - any version - may contain the odd bit of history (just as Homer's 'Illiad' might), not by any normative standards does its many books qualify as historical works.

Take the New Testament as an example. The redaction of the NT was a politically and theologically charged affair that began in the 4th century in a series of synods - most notably the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE. The churchmen met to choose the canon some 350 years after the death of Jesus. They selected the texts to be included, and they resolved discrepancies between different copies of the same text, remembering that these manuscripts were all hand-copied over many generations. The result: an anthology touched and transformed by poets, philosophers, partisans, and politics.

It bears repeating that the NT is not a history textbook by contemporary historical standards. There is precious little independent corroboration to even establish the existence of Jesus

iama: What you are not realizing is that God-Holy Spirit, indwelling believers, gives believers the ability to determine which writings are truth and which are not. By the time of the compiling of The Bible which we have today, all of the books which were incorporated into The New Testament, HAD ALREADY been validated by the believers and their leaders.

Here, following, are some resources indicating the historical accuracy of Luke and Acts:

The story came to me this way. In the fall of 1992, Notre Dame and Boston College contested one another in football. It was a one-sided rout as Notre Dame demolished its opponent. Even in the second half, well ahead in points, the Fighting Irish kept running up the score, contrary to that unspoken rule of good sportsmanship. Sometime later, it is said, the coach of Boston College was offered a position with the National Football League. The job would have meant more money, greater prestige, etc. Surprisingly, however, it was turned down. The coach wryly commented, “I have some unfinished business.” The next year Boston College defeated Number 1 ranked Notre Dame. Business finished!

When I heard that report, I thought of a similar circumstance of many years ago. Sir William M. Ramsay (1851-1939) had been educated at the universities of Aberdeen (Scotland) and at Oxford. In his theological pursuits, however, he had fallen victim to the radical theories of German critics like F.C. Baur. He came to question the historical accuracy of the New Testament. He thus decided that he would do on-site research in some of the Bible lands—where he fully expected to disprove the Scriptures in numerous particulars. Accordingly, in 1890 he set out on his adventure.

As he examined the historical references in the New Testament (especially the book of Acts), amazingly, he discovered that time after time the biblical writers were correct, and the modernistic criticisms that had been hurled against the sacred volume were baseless. And so, in 1895 he wrote a book titled, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, in which he strongly defended the accuracy of the inspired historian Luke, relative to the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts.

A liberal critic reviewed Professor Ramsay’s book, and concluded his discussion with this barb: “If Luke is a great historian, what would the author of this book [Ramsay] make of Luke 2:1-3?” Ramsay mused, “Nothing more was needed. This brief question was sufficient” (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, p. 223). The learned scholar had some unfinished business! He would determine whether Luke 2:1ff was correct or not. After his investigation, he penned the volume just cited.

For many years, Luke 2:1-7 had been perceived as containing more error per square inch than almost any other section in the New Testament. Thanks to the work of Sir William Ramsay, those objections have vanished – every one of them.

It was alleged that Luke erred in assigning Bethlehem of Judea as the birth place of Christ. There was a Bethlehem in Zebulon of Galilee; obviously Luke had confused the two cities. But the critics were wrong. The Old Testament had prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem of Judea (Mic. 5:2), and the Hebrew people entertained this expectation (Jn. 7:42). Furthermore, Matthew, as an independent writer, confirms that Jesus was born in the southern Bethlehem (2:1).

It was charged that Luke had erred in suggesting that “all the world” was to be enrolled. But the Greek word for world is oikumene (not the kosmos of John 3:16), which merely signified the world of the Roman empire (cf. Acts 17:6; 19:27).

The critics argued that since Herod the Great was “king” over Judea (Mt. 2:1,22) the Jews of that region would not have been subject to Roman taxation. However, Herod was only a vassal king—ultimately subject to Rome. When Archelaus (Mt. 2:22) was deposed from his throne in A.D. 6, Roman procurators were appointed to administer the affairs of the country.

It was claimed that Augustus never ordered a general census of the Roman empire. But Luke actually never made such a claim. When he states that “all the world should be enrolled,” he employed a present tense verb, i.e., the ruler ordered the adoption of the practice of enrolment (rather than alluding to a specific enrolment). He says nothing about how the decree was implemented.

Luke also contends that the census at the time of the Lord’s birth was the “first” one. Was he right? Ancient records reveal that there was a census conducted every 14 years. Acts 5:37 mentions another of these, but the one alluded to in Luke 2:2 was the first.

It was alleged that Quirinius was not “governor of Syria” at the time of Christ’s birth. But the word “governor” (hegemoneuo) is a generic term and archaeological evidence has shown that in some sense Quirinius was twice a ruler in Syria, the first of which can be reconciled with Luke 2:2.

It was claimed that the enrolment did not require everyone to return to “his own city.” A document from Egypt (A.D. 104) has shown that during that time “all who for any cause are outside their homes [must] return to their domestic hearths, that they may also accomplish the customary dispensation of enrolment.” Since there was a cultural parallelism between Egypt and Palestine, there is no reason to question Luke’s accuracy of this point.

The inspired writer has been vindicated in every particular. Business finished!

One of our readers complains that a friend tells him that in order to have faith in Christ, he must examine certain evidence. He objects, suggesting that if he has to have “evidence” to believe, his faith really would not be faith at all? He says, for instance, that Christ’s resurrection is something that must be accepted by faith alone. He contends there is no real evidence for such. In this connection he contends that the Gospel accounts are nothing more than hearsay, and no physical evidence is available.

With all due respect, this complaint reveals more about the “mind set” of its author than anything else. First, it demonstrates that the gentleman does not understand the nature of “belief,” the value of “evidence,” or even the essence of human “reason.” Second, it demonstrates a bias against the New Testament documents as valid pieces of evidence.

Evidence

The gathering of evidence is a process that is involved in almost every endeavor of human activity. It is a part of the way the human mind was designed to operate. Evidence is collected; then it is analyzed; finally, logical conclusions are drawn, which allows action to be implemented.

The word “evidence” derives from the Latin, evidentia, signifying “that which is clear, evident.” Without evidence the auto mechanic cannot determine how to repair an automobile. Without evidence the physician cannot diagnose and remedy an illness. Without evidence a criminal cannot be convicted of a crime.

Is it reasonable to believe that the greatest question of human existence — how do I get to heaven? — is void of any evidential support? Such a conclusion is illogical, much less is it scriptural.

One definition of “evidence,” as given in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, is this: “something that tends to prove; ground for belief.” Evidence and belief compliment one another; they are not mutually exclusive. Evidence prepares the way for belief; belief does not exist independent of evidence. Let us consider the following examples.

There Is No Excuse for Ignoring Evidence

Paul argued that belief in the existence of God is grounded in observable evidence. To the saints in Rome he affirmed:

“For the invisible things of [God] since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:20-21).

This passage declares that the ancient pagans were “without excuse” due to the fact that they refused to apprehend certain evidence available to them by means of sense perception. Note:

(1) They did not use their “perception” (the verb is noeo, which denotes analytical reasoning) in analyzing the data of the observable universe. As E. Wurthwein observes: “From visible things we can and should work back (in an intellectual process) to the invisible reality of the Creator” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged, G.W. Bromiley, Ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985, p. 636).

(2) These heathen are described as “senseless” (asunetos — the negative form of a term historically suggesting “to bring together,” hence, “to understand.” They refused to use their minds logically, to consider the evidence at their disposal.

These expressions, and many others employed in the New Testament, clearly demonstrate that the use of evidence, in concert with valid reasoning, is the correct process in coming to a knowledge of divine truth.

The Scriptures: Divine Evidence

There are numerous references in the New Testament that reveal that the sacred writers regarded the Scriptures as an authentic depository of evidence for the establishment of the integrity of the Christian system. For instance:

(1) When the newly-converted Saul of Tarsus began to proclaim Christ as Lord, to the Jewish population of Damascus, he “confounded” them by “proving” (sumbibazo — “to bring together,” i.e., “to demonstrate”) that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 9:22; see J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, p. 596).

The method that would have been employed would have been by citing prophecies from the Old Testament, comparing these with the facts relating to the Lord, e.g., his birth, miracles, teaching, character, death and resurrection, etc. Evidence was always an integral part of the primitive gospel case.

(2) When the citizens of Berea were exposed to the message of Jesus, they were characterized by a certain nobility, because they took the facts preached by Paul and his companions, and they “examined” (anakrino) them to determine whether or not they were true. The verb signifies “exact research as in legal processes” (A.T. Roberton, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, p. 275). Unquestionably, the gathering of evidence was an essential element of this process.

Finally, to suggest that the Gospel accounts are “nothing more than hearsay” is truly an intellectually irresponsible assertion. One might as well dismiss the evidential value of all historical literature. Thus, antiquity becomes a mere “black hole,” from which no reliable illumination escapes. Banished, then, are the writings of the Greek, Roman and Jewish historians, and our knowledge of ancient history virtually is nil.

Whenever the writings of the New Testament are checked, by the most rigorous standards possible, they pass with flying colors. A classic example illustrating such is Sir. William Ramsay’s volume, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915).

Conclusion

Biblical “faith,” therefore, is not a wispy, leap-in-the-dark, existential experience. It is a quiet confidence, based upon the evidence that relates to the case, appeals to the reasonable mind, and results in trust and obedience.

For a more thorough consideration of this matter, see Appendix (V), “The Use of ‘Believe’ In Acts,” in our commentary, The Acts of the Apostles from Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: “Courier Publications”, 2005, pp. 415-18).

iama: I wonder what your objection, really is, to my posting of documentation. If you have disagreement with some posted documentation, then isolate that portion and present it along with your reasons for disagreeing.

Are you here to spend your time with negative, unsupported claims, or are you here to consider evidence / data, to learn, and to believe, if convinced? If it is the former, then you are wasting everyone's time, yours, included.

.

http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=N0RDR6y_QBc

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin."Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.".Justice is receiving what you deserve.Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve..

Namchuck: While the Bible - any version - may contain the odd bit of history (just as Homer's 'Illiad' might), not by any normative standards does its many books qualify as historical works.

Take the New Testament as an example. The redaction of the NT was a politically and theologically charged affair that began in the 4th century in a series of synods - most notably the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE. The churchmen met to choose the canon some 350 years after the death of Jesus. They selected the texts to be included, and they resolved discrepancies between different copies of the same text, remembering that these manuscripts were all hand-copied over many generations. The result: an anthology touched and transformed by poets, philosophers, partisans, and politics.

It bears repeating that the NT is not a history textbook by contemporary historical standards. There is precious little independent corroboration to even establish the existence of Jesus

iama: What you are not realizing is that God-Holy Spirit, indwelling believers, gives believers the ability to determine which writings are truth and which are not. By the time of the compiling of The Bible which we have today, all of the books which were incorporated into The New Testament, HAD ALREADY been validated by the believers and their leaders.

I've heard the same thing said by pious Muslims and Mormons, and it is a fact of history that anyone who demurred from the 'official' selection of the canon was severly dealt with, sometimes mortally so.

It is also a matter of fact that most Christians couldn't read at the time of the selections, so it's nonsense to talk about the New Testament books being "validated by believers".

Here, following, are some resources indicating the historical accuracy of Luke and Acts:

One could line up just as many scholars with who have drawn up the very opposite conclusions than those whom you cite. This merely identifies what the Bible most definitely is not: If the Bible was really the work of a perfect and loving God, it would be obviously superlative in every respect to anything that could be conceived by human intellect alone. It would be accurate, concise, clear and consistent throughout. There is nothing more obvious that it is none of these things.

The story came to me this way. In the fall of 1992, Notre Dame and Boston College contested one another in football. It was a one-sided rout as Notre Dame demolished its opponent. Even in the second half, well ahead in points, the Fighting Irish kept running up the score, contrary to that unspoken rule of good sportsmanship. Sometime later, it is said, the coach of Boston College was offered a position with the National Football League. The job would have meant more money, greater prestige, etc. Surprisingly, however, it was turned down. The coach wryly commented, “I have some unfinished business.” The next year Boston College defeated Number 1 ranked Notre Dame. Business finished!

When I heard that report, I thought of a similar circumstance of many years ago. Sir William M. Ramsay (1851-1939) had been educated at the universities of Aberdeen (Scotland) and at Oxford. In his theological pursuits, however, he had fallen victim to the radical theories of German critics like F.C. Baur. He came to question the historical accuracy of the New Testament. He thus decided that he would do on-site research in some of the Bible lands—where he fully expected to disprove the Scriptures in numerous particulars. Accordingly, in 1890 he set out on his adventure.

As he examined the historical references in the New Testament (especially the book of Acts), amazingly, he discovered that time after time the biblical writers were correct, and the modernistic criticisms that had been hurled against the sacred volume were baseless. And so, in 1895 he wrote a book titled, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, in which he strongly defended the accuracy of the inspired historian Luke, relative to the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts.

A liberal critic reviewed Professor Ramsay’s book, and concluded his discussion with this barb: “If Luke is a great historian, what would the author of this book [Ramsay] make of Luke 2:1-3?” Ramsay mused, “Nothing more was needed. This brief question was sufficient” (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, p. 223). The learned scholar had some unfinished business! He would determine whether Luke 2:1ff was correct or not. After his investigation, he penned the volume just cited.

For many years, Luke 2:1-7 had been perceived as containing more error per square inch than almost any other section in the New Testament. Thanks to the work of Sir William Ramsay, those objections have vanished – every one of them.

It was alleged that Luke erred in assigning Bethlehem of Judea as the birth place of Christ. There was a Bethlehem in Zebulon of Galilee; obviously Luke had confused the two cities. But the critics were wrong. The Old Testament had prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem of Judea (Mic. 5:2), and the Hebrew people entertained this expectation (Jn. 7:42). Furthermore, Matthew, as an independent writer, confirms that Jesus was born in the southern Bethlehem (2:1).

It was charged that Luke had erred in suggesting that “all the world” was to be enrolled. But the Greek word for world is oikumene (not the kosmos of John 3:16), which merely signified the world of the Roman empire (cf. Acts 17:6; 19:27).

The critics argued that since Herod the Great was “king” over Judea (Mt. 2:1,22) the Jews of that region would not have been subject to Roman taxation. However, Herod was only a vassal king—ultimately subject to Rome. When Archelaus (Mt. 2:22) was deposed from his throne in A.D. 6, Roman procurators were appointed to administer the affairs of the country.

It was claimed that Augustus never ordered a general census of the Roman empire. But Luke actually never made such a claim. When he states that “all the world should be enrolled,” he employed a present tense verb, i.e., the ruler ordered the adoption of the practice of enrolment (rather than alluding to a specific enrolment). He says nothing about how the decree was implemented.

Luke also contends that the census at the time of the Lord’s birth was the “first” one. Was he right? Ancient records reveal that there was a census conducted every 14 years. Acts 5:37 mentions another of these, but the one alluded to in Luke 2:2 was the first.

It was alleged that Quirinius was not “governor of Syria” at the time of Christ’s birth. But the word “governor” (hegemoneuo) is a generic term and archaeological evidence has shown that in some sense Quirinius was twice a ruler in Syria, the first of which can be reconciled with Luke 2:2.

It was claimed that the enrolment did not require everyone to return to “his own city.” A document from Egypt (A.D. 104) has shown that during that time “all who for any cause are outside their homes [must] return to their domestic hearths, that they may also accomplish the customary dispensation of enrolment.” Since there was a cultural parallelism between Egypt and Palestine, there is no reason to question Luke’s accuracy of this point.

The inspired writer has been vindicated in every particular. Business finished!

One of our readers complains that a friend tells him that in order to have faith in Christ, he must examine certain evidence. He objects, suggesting that if he has to have “evidence” to believe, his faith really would not be faith at all? He says, for instance, that Christ’s resurrection is something that must be accepted by faith alone. He contends there is no real evidence for such. In this connection he contends that the Gospel accounts are nothing more than hearsay, and no physical evidence is available.

With all due respect, this complaint reveals more about the “mind set” of its author than anything else. First, it demonstrates that the gentleman does not understand the nature of “belief,” the value of “evidence,” or even the essence of human “reason.” Second, it demonstrates a bias against the New Testament documents as valid pieces of evidence.

Evidence

The gathering of evidence is a process that is involved in almost every endeavor of human activity. It is a part of the way the human mind was designed to operate. Evidence is collected; then it is analyzed; finally, logical conclusions are drawn, which allows action to be implemented.

The word “evidence” derives from the Latin, evidentia, signifying “that which is clear, evident.” Without evidence the auto mechanic cannot determine how to repair an automobile. Without evidence the physician cannot diagnose and remedy an illness. Without evidence a criminal cannot be convicted of a crime.

Is it reasonable to believe that the greatest question of human existence — how do I get to heaven? — is void of any evidential support? Such a conclusion is illogical, much less is it scriptural.

What a load of unmitigated rubbish!

Whose version of 'How do I get to heaven' are we to believe, considering that the only thing the various religions of 'the Book' have in common is a complete disregard for evidence?

One definition of “evidence,” as given in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, is this: “something that tends to prove; ground for belief.” Evidence and belief compliment one another; they are not mutually exclusive. Evidence prepares the way for belief; belief does not exist independent of evidence. Let us consider the following examples.

I would completely agree that rational belief and evidence compliment one another. This, of course, doesn't apply to the irrational belief of which religion is comprised.

There Is No Excuse for Ignoring Evidence

Paul argued that belief in the existence of God is grounded in observable evidence. To the saints in Rome he affirmed:

“For the invisible things of [God] since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:20-21).

This passage declares that the ancient pagans were “without excuse” due to the fact that they refused to apprehend certain evidence available to them by means of sense perception. Note:

(1) They did not use their “perception” (the verb is noeo, which denotes analytical reasoning) in analyzing the data of the observable universe. As E. Wurthwein observes: “From visible things we can and should work back (in an intellectual process) to the invisible reality of the Creator” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged, G.W. Bromiley, Ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985, p. 636).

(2) These heathen are described as “senseless” (asunetos — the negative form of a term historically suggesting “to bring together,” hence, “to understand.” They refused to use their minds logically, to consider the evidence at their disposal.

These expressions, and many others employed in the New Testament, clearly demonstrate that the use of evidence, in concert with valid reasoning, is the correct process in coming to a knowledge of divine truth.

Insupportable obfuscation.

Religion has cast itself as an explanatory system, but its embarrassing weakness has been progressively exposed with the maturing of philosophy and the systematic empirical investigation we call science.

The Scriptures: Divine Evidence

There are numerous references in the New Testament that reveal that the sacred writers regarded the Scriptures as an authentic depository of evidence for the establishment of the integrity of the Christian system. For instance:

(1) When the newly-converted Saul of Tarsus began to proclaim Christ as Lord, to the Jewish population of Damascus, he “confounded” them by “proving” (sumbibazo — “to bring together,” i.e., “to demonstrate”) that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 9:22; see J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, p. 596).

The method that would have been employed would have been by citing prophecies from the Old Testament, comparing these with the facts relating to the Lord, e.g., his birth, miracles, teaching, character, death and resurrection, etc. Evidence was always an integral part of the primitive gospel case.

(2) When the citizens of Berea were exposed to the message of Jesus, they were characterized by a certain nobility, because they took the facts preached by Paul and his companions, and they “examined” (anakrino) them to determine whether or not they were true. The verb signifies “exact research as in legal processes” (A.T. Roberton, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, p. 275). Unquestionably, the gathering of evidence was an essential element of this process.

Finally, to suggest that the Gospel accounts are “nothing more than hearsay” is truly an intellectually irresponsible assertion.

It is not irresponsible at all. The gospel accounts undoubtedly amount to little more than hearsay.

One might as well dismiss the evidential value of all historical literature.

All historical literature is subject to the same robust scrutiny. Some of it fairs better than others. The Bible is simply literature that cannot stand too much close scrutiny.

Thus, antiquity becomes a mere “black hole,” from which no reliable illumination escapes. Banished, then, are the writings of the Greek, Roman and Jewish historians, and our knowledge of ancient history virtually is nil.

Nonsense. Much of what constitutes 'historical literature' enjoys corroborative support from a number of sources. The Bible is simply not part of that vouched for literature.

Whenever the writings of the New Testament are checked, by the most rigorous standards possible, they pass with flying colors. A classic example illustrating such is Sir. William Ramsay’s volume, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915).

That, too, is unmitigated nonsense too easily repudiated. Biblical scholarship has come a long way since 1915.

Conclusion

Biblical “faith,” therefore, is not a wispy, leap-in-the-dark, existential experience. It is a quiet confidence, based upon the evidence that relates to the case, appeals to the reasonable mind, and results in trust and obedience.

It is nothing of the sort. Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence, which has never been consistent with reason. Again, by its very invocation, faith is a transparent admission that religious claims cannot stand on their own two feet.

For a more thorough consideration of this matter, see Appendix (V), “The Use of ‘Believe’ In Acts,” in our commentary, The Acts of the Apostles from Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: “Courier Publications”, 2005, pp. 415-18).

iama: I wonder what your objection, really is, to my posting of documentation. If you have disagreement with some posted documentation, then isolate that portion and present it along with your reasons for disagreeing.

You can post as much documentation as you want, but it is very apparent that you either haven't read or do not understand much of what you are posting. I also think that you hope by mere volume to silence the criticism that religious literature rightly deserves and has received.

Are you here to spend your time with negative, unsupported claims, or are you here to consider evidence / data, to learn, and to believe, if convinced? If it is the former, then you are wasting everyone's time, yours, included.

Unlike you, I have advanced the evidence for the claims I am making, and I can do so without hiding behind quotes and citations of others.

As yet, no believer has been able to coherently respond to my question about faith: If faith can lead to wrong beliefs, what value is there in it?

If the NT / Gospels are reliable enough to believe, the spiritual next step is to trust the words and ministry of the historical Jesus of Nazareth ...( and THEN his followers!)

And there is just as much - in fact, much much more - scholarly work uncompromised by a priori belief that identifies the unreliability of the New Testament canon. Furthermore, the 'historical Jesus', if he existed at all, is not discernible at all in the Gospel accounts.

There is only the Jesus of myth and legend, the so-called 'Jesus of faith'. Geza Vermes' great study of Jesus the Jew reveals him to be one of potentially many cast in the same cultural mould. In that light, he does not shine as particularly holy, nor do his teachings seem, except in some instances, commendable. They are certainly not the key to saving either society or the self.

Please provide citations to these. Are they older than mine? Are they more objective than mine?Have they withstood constructive and unbiased scholarly criticism?

I dare say that the scholars that often inform my 'opinions' are likely to be more objective than yours, given that they have far fewer apriori beliefs to defend.

And yes, the works of many of them - such biblical scholars as Desclee de Brouwer, Richard Carrier, Gerard Mordillat, Dr Robert M. Price, Geza Vermes, Jacob Neusner, Jerome Prieur, Bart Ehrman, Raoul Vaneigen, and Charles Guignebert, just to name a few - have certainly withstood constructive and unbiased scholarly criticism.

Please provide citations to these. Are they older than mine? Are they more objective than mine?Have they withstood constructive and unbiased scholarly criticism?

I dare say that the scholars that often inform my 'opinions' are likely to be more objective than yours, given that they have far less apriori beliefs to defend.

And yes, the works of many of them - such biblical scholars as Desclee de Brouwer, Richard Carrier, Gerard Mordillat, Dr Robert M. Price, Geza Vermes, Jacob Neusner, Jerome Prieur, Bart Ehrman, Raoul Vaneigen, and Charles Guignebert, just to name a few - have certainly withstood constructive and unbiased scholarly criticism.

Any one can name a scholar and say "game over". I could say that scholar A, scholar B, and scholar C refute your postion. But the devil is in the details.

So it would be much more productive if you laid out the argument from any of these scholars that you mention.